18 August 2026: The Supreme Court in Rishi Malhotra & Anr. v. Union of India considered the
constitutional validity of Section 354(5) CrPC, corresponding to Section 393(5) BNSS, which
prescribes hanging as the sole method of execution of a death sentence.
Statutory provisions involved:
Article 14, Constitution of India: Equality before law.
Article 21, Constitution of India: Right to life and dignity.
Section 354(5), CrPC: Execution of death sentence by hanging.
Section 393(5), BNSS: Corresponding provision under the new criminal law.
Article 32, Constitution of India: Constitutional remedies.
Facts:
The petitioner, Rishi Malhotra, filed a PIL under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity
of Section 354(5) CrPC, contending that hanging as the only prescribed method of execution is
cruel, inhuman and violative of Articles 14 and 21. He also sought recognition of a right to die
through a dignified procedure.
The petitioner relied upon the 187th Law Commission Report, developments in medical and
scientific knowledge and the evolution of the right to dignity under Article 21. It was argued
that less painful alternatives, including lethal injection, should be considered.
The Union of India opposed the challenge, relying mainly on Deena v. Union of India, where a
three-Judge Bench had already upheld hanging as a constitutional method of execution. It was
also submitted that no reliable scientific material had been placed before the Court to establish
that another method was demonstrably more humane.
Legal Issue:
Whether the constitutional validity of hanging as the sole method of execution under Section
354(5) CrPC/Section 393(5) BNSS should be reconsidered and the matter referred to a larger
Bench in view of subsequent constitutional, scientific and empirical developments?
Obiter
The Court observed that Deena v. Union of India, decided by a three-Judge Bench, had already
upheld hanging as a constitutional method of execution and was subsequently approved by a
Constitution Bench in Shashi Nayar v. Union of India. Therefore, a two-Judge Bench could not
depart from the settled position without compelling constitutional, scientific or empirical
material.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had not produced any credible material sufficient to
demonstrate that the basis of Deena had been displaced by subsequent developments. The
material regarding lethal injection also did not establish that it was demonstrably more humane
than hanging.
However, the Court clarified that the dismissal would not prevent future constitutional scrutiny
if compelling scientific, medical or empirical evidence emerges in the future.
Ratio:
If a larger Bench has already upheld the constitutional validity of hanging as a method of
execution, a smaller Bench cannot reconsider or depart from that view unless subsequent
constitutional, scientific or empirical developments provide compelling grounds to do so. In the
present case, no such material was placed before the Court to displace the reasoning in Deena.
Therefore, the Court declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench and upheld the existing legal
position on hanging as the prescribed method of execution.
Coram:
Justice Vikram Nath
Justice Sandeep Mehta
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, while leaving open the possibility of future
con18 August 2026: The Supreme Court in Rishi Malhotra & Anr. v. Union of India considered the
constitutional validity of Section 354(5) CrPC, corresponding to Section 393(5) BNSS, which
prescribes hanging as the sole method of execution of a death sentence.
Statutory provisions involved:
Article 14, Constitution of India: Equality before law.
Article 21, Constitution of India: Right to life and dignity.
Section 354(5), CrPC: Execution of death sentence by hanging.
Section 393(5), BNSS: Corresponding provision under the new criminal law.
Article 32, Constitution of India: Constitutional remedies.
Facts:
The petitioner, Rishi Malhotra, filed a PIL under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity
of Section 354(5) CrPC, contending that hanging as the only prescribed method of execution is
cruel, inhuman and violative of Articles 14 and 21. He also sought recognition of a right to die
through a dignified procedure.
The petitioner relied upon the 187th Law Commission Report, developments in medical and
scientific knowledge and the evolution of the right to dignity under Article 21. It was argued
that less painful alternatives, including lethal injection, should be considered.
The Union of India opposed the challenge, relying mainly on Deena v. Union of India, where a
three-Judge Bench had already upheld hanging as a constitutional method of execution. It was
also submitted that no reliable scientific material had been placed before the Court to establish
that another method was demonstrably more humane.
Legal Issue:
Whether the constitutional validity of hanging as the sole method of execution under Section
354(5) CrPC/Section 393(5) BNSS should be reconsidered and the matter referred to a larger
Bench in view of subsequent constitutional, scientific and empirical developments?
Obiter
The Court observed that Deena v. Union of India, decided by a three-Judge Bench, had already
upheld hanging as a constitutional method of execution and was subsequently approved by a
Constitution Bench in Shashi Nayar v. Union of India. Therefore, a two-Judge Bench could not
depart from the settled position without compelling constitutional, scientific or empirical
material.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had not produced any credible material sufficient to
demonstrate that the basis of Deena had been displaced by subsequent developments. The
material regarding lethal injection also did not establish that it was demonstrably more humane
than hanging.
However, the Court clarified that the dismissal would not prevent future constitutional scrutiny
if compelling scientific, medical or empirical evidence emerges in the future.
Ratio:
If a larger Bench has already upheld the constitutional validity of hanging as a method of
execution, a smaller Bench cannot reconsider or depart from that view unless subsequent
constitutional, scientific or empirical developments provide compelling grounds to do so. In the
present case, no such material was placed before the Court to displace the reasoning in Deena.
Therefore, the Court declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench and upheld the existing legal
position on hanging as the prescribed method of execution.
Coram:
Justice Vikram Nath
Justice Sandeep Mehta
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, while leaving open the possibility of future
constitutional scrutiny if compelling scientific or medical evidence emerges. The Court also
observed that the Union Government may undertake a comprehensive review of the existing
method of execution through an expert body as a matter of policy.stitutional scrutiny if compelling scientific or medical evidence emerges. The Court also
observed that the Union Government may undertake a comprehensive review of the existing
method of execution through an expert body as a matter of policy.
